Broccoli and Brussel Sprouts are not FEDERALLY banned plants. Cannibis maybe legal in some states, but not to the Federal government. I’m not weighing in on whether that should be the case, just illustrating a significant distinction.
I don’t think the bolded statement is true, at least not for high quality (marketable) cannabis on a commercial scale. Now you’re talking about the importance of terroir to wine grapes, which the vast majority of wine consumers don’t care about. Again, I think you’re calling something a problem that doesn’t have to be. When it comes to popularity and money, cannabis is going to have a serious advantage over fine wine (see Brent’s post), so I think it makes the most sense to try to get along instead of arbitrarily saying one thing “deserves” the land and resources more than the other. Turn it into a fight and cannabis will eventually win in many places. Once national legalization happens (I know it will be a while still, but it will happen), the cannabis industry will include truly big business with FAR more money and resulting political power than wine growers have.
I’m still not seeing a logical argument to support your stance, which is unlike you. Do you just have a problem with cannabis? The thread started as a question about whether these two things can live harmoniously near each other, and you’ve come out and basically said they shouldn’t rather than addressing the question. I don’t understand.
Doug, appreciate the compliment, thanks. My comment was more in response to Hardy’s post just before mine re Napa/Sonoma. I would be disappointed to see mass turnover of prime vineyard land to cannabis in those areas. Although that might be better than having a huge “Prisoner” tasting room on Hwy 29, lol.
I don’t know what fraction of cannabis is grown indoors, or in greenhouses, as opposed to outdoor fields. Obviously you don’t need to site greenhouses or indoor growing facilities on land suitable for growing crops, fruit, grapes, etc. Nor (I claim) does it make sense to grow cannabis on what could otherwise be prime vineyard land. My point is that I hope areas known for grape growing resist the switch to cannabis, because cannabis can be grown many more places than can top quality grapes.
I also think it’s too early to really know how the economics are going to shake out with cannabis. I would think prices will come down as the market is saturated, making it much a less desirable industry. Eventually it has to become a commodity crop, just like most other produce.
I see. I do understand what you’re saying now. Still, I think there’s a big difference between resisting switching prime vineyard land (even if only potentially prime) to cannabis land and banning cannabis cultivation completely in wine regions. Greenhouses will work best in areas that fit certain environmental parameters, and indoor growing is a terrible drain on electricity and other resources (so much more equipment is necessary, for instance). I truly hope the two find ways to coexist. I think that would be best for wine regions. I see a fair amount of sensationalism from people in the wine industry, now supported by a local government in this case, and it isn’t helping anything. There’s plenty of opportunity now to learn what can work and how, so that everyone prospers.
But why even consider allowing cannabis growing in existing wine regions? Why is more open farmland not equally, or more, suitable? Surely the factors that create great growing conditions for high quality wine grapes aren’t the same conditions that produce the “best” cannabis? I get that the answer is $$$, but hopefully that’s not the only driving force.
I don’t think so. Cannabis depends on change in length of daylight to initiate flowering. So really one crop per year. I don’t believe the auto flower varieties are all that viable from a commercial perspective.
Indoors you might squeeze 3 crops per year into the same space but that’s pushing it. 10 weeks of growth plus 8 weeks of flowering, starting from rooted clones, is a pretty short turnaround.
My knowledge could be behind the times. I haven’t tried to keep up with current trends in hybridization.
Availability of labor and supplies comes to mind. I realize that the wine industry has not had plentiful labor, but that doesn’t mean cannabis growers can set up in far more remote areas and magically have plenty of workers. If everyone has a “not in my back yard” stance, we’re left with the black market as it is rather than learning how to make it work legally, with huge amounts of tax revenue and employment opportunity that go along with that.
I think a better question is: why not consider it? I still haven’t seen any good reason. I would hope our government’s default would be to allow things rather than disallow them when there isn’t a rational and unavoidable reason to do the latter.
LED technology makes indoor growing very efficient.
Compared to the old technology, yes. Compared to the sun, not at all. Even LEDs use a lot of electricity when you’re talking about large scale operations.
My son is still working on the case of Maysara suing a cannabis grower attempting to block him. This case has been ongoing for 2.5 years with no settlement in sight. My son is defending the cannabis grower.
While it is hard to find reliable data, the impression in Santa Barbara County is that most of the cannabis is grown in canyons where grapes are not grown because the sides are too steep or the canyons too narrow or they are not very long. Most grapes grown here are on the flatland or slopping hills of 30 degrees or less. So far there have been no reports of vineyard land being converted to cannabis. Historically, most vineyard land here replaced pasture land for cattle or horses which became unprofitable. Solvang was started by Danish dairy farmers and there 30 dairies in the middle of the last century. None exist now.
I bet electricity for lighting is only 10% of total cost of indoor production.
This problem was solved long ago with a technique called Light Deprivation or light dep. In the simplest cases growers lierally put tarps over their greenhouses in summer time to create the desired light cycle. In more high tech scenarios this is all automated so 4 crops a year is not stretching it. Indoors 6 or more crops a year is not uncommon.
From what I can glean, California has about 9 million acres of “quality” farm land, growing crops of various kinds. In comparison, it seems there are maybe 600,000 acres of quality grape growing land (and probably a lot less “prime” wine growing). Surely there is a lot more labor available in farmland regions than in wine growing regions, as well as a a lot more profit to be gained - while sacrificing little in total acreage to farmland needed to deliver the food we need.
We know there are cannabis farms scattered around wine regions, particularly Sonoma and Mendocino counties, no doubt others. We’ve already seen a number of old vine vineyards pulled up to plant other varieties, or just to build housing. I’m just saying I hope pressure doesn’t mount to tear up large swaths of vineyard land to plant cannabis.
I agree with that last sentence. I don’t think it will ever happen.
1 Like
I wonder what percentage of WBers smoke weed (or vape, or edibles).
I’d be very surprised if the answer was anything less than 10%.
Unless there is a marked difference between sun grown weed & indoor grown weed, I fail to see why anyone would pay up for vineyard quality land when there are plenty of warehouse or like equivalent places that are far cheaper.
Will, someone’s going to tell you there is, and connoisseurs can tell the difference, but they also think Hostess Ding Dongs are great, so I’m not sure I trust them ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
If you look at what Stephen and Sean said above… Consider that volatile oils are prized here. Consider this is by far the most researched and manipulated crop in human history, by far. Maybe coffee is a good comparison, where full sun and rich farmland are marks of very low quality. Consider all the offerings at dispenseries. Strain and terroir are crucial. (Think cigar tobacco, in that way.) This is the most intested-in crop in human history. High tech grow houses provide ideal growing conditions, with all the inputs a sort of synthetically idealized terroir to achieve a desired result.
The issue here is more proximity. I agree the best use of the best vineyard sites is growing grapes. I doubt this is a threat to recognized great sites. On the other hand, a large-scale operation might target lesser vineyard sites. Someone was just talking about how some vineyards in Oregon are being converted to growing hops. I’d assume those weren’t great vineyards, so perhaps hops is the best use.
But consider where it is grown now: in basements, in greenhouses (similar to hothouse tomatoes or microgreens), in factory warehouses…cannabis doesn’t need land. Terroir is as far from a discussion of weed from any kind of land-based crop.